Category Archives: Freedom

Another November 5th, another mass mobilisation to the streets by the Anonymous collective.

Since one cold night in 2011, Anonymous UK has gathered together in Trafalgar Square, as a centerpiece of a worldwide Anonymous operation of global strength and solidarity, a warning to all governments worldwide that if they keep trying to censor, cut, imprison, or silence the free world or the free internet then we will not stand idly by.

Anonymous has no leaders, it has no central committee or public relations department, it is a hive-mind of normal people, just like you, who have decided that action is the only answer now.

In 2012 as Anonymous UK prepared to mobilise for November 5th a press release went out, every line filled with venom against the then Home Secretary Theresa May. In the four years that has passed Mrs May has risen to unelected power, fueled by right-wing rhetoric and striving to push the UK to even new lows. Anonymous UK has never shied from directly standing in opposition to Mrs May; in 2012 we launched a devastating cyber attack that crippled the Home Office’s website in response to her inaction about the threatened extradition of Gary McKinnon, a threat faced today by Lauri Love.

In 2016 we’re going to come knocking on Mrs May’s door.

Austerity measures, once seen as a horrendous option, have now become the political norm. The media gaze has shifted to making scapegoats out of migrants, but we have not forgotten the real cause of the hardship faced by hundreds of thousands of normal people. Cut the causes of the problems, don’t cause more, its time to take an axe to the Tory tree.

The last few November 5ths have fallen in the week, this year it falls on a Saturday. As we pour through the streets of London we aim to show the tourists and gentrifiers that London is not a city in subdued slumber, but a city full of people angry at their rulers, and passionate about change.

We look beyond the narrow scope of Brexit to the inherent problems of the system, capitalism is not working, capitalism has not worked, capitalism will not work. Its time to stop being complacent cogs, grinding towards the bosses’ next bonus package, and instead start working towards radical new solutions. We welcome all and anyone who agrees, you need not wear a Guy Fawkes mask to take to the streets on November 5th. We respect diversity of tactics and welcome anyone who takes the path of direct action.

Last year the biggest gang in London, the Met Police, attended our demonstration in force. Despite reinforcements from across the country they put on a pitiful display of aggression and violence. We call on the Metropolitan Police to restrain from violence and their usual mob mentality. To those attending November 5th with little experience of the Met we have simple advise, the police are not your friends, they do not regard you as such, do not regard them as such either.

In a society that has abolished all adventure, the only adventure left is to abolish that society.

The Failure of Democracy: How The Oligarchs Plan To “Steal The Election”

I am now convinced that the Oligarchy that rules America intends to steal the presidential election. In the past, the oligarchs have not cared which candidate won as the oligarchs owned both. But they do not own Trump.

Most likely you are unaware of what Trump is telling people as the media does not report it.

—Wall Street and the mega-banks too big to fail and their agent the Federal Reserve, a federal agency that put 5 banks ahead of millions of troubled American homeowners who the federal reserve allowed to be flushed down the toilet. In order to save the mega-banks’ balance sheets from their irresponsible behavior, the Fed has denied retirees any interest income on their savings for eight years, forcing the elderly to draw down their savings, leaving their heirs, who have been displaced from employment by corporate jobs offshoring, penniless.

—The military/security complex which has spent trillions of our taxpayer dollars on 15 years of gratuitous wars based entirely on lies in order to enrich themselves and their power.

—The neoconservartives whose crazed ideology of US world hegemony thrusts the American people into military conflict with Russia and China.

—The US global corporations that sent American jobs to China and India and elsewhere in order to enrich the One Percent with higher profits from lower labor costs.

—Agribusiness (Monsanto et.al.), corporations that poison the soil, the water, the oceans, and our food with their GMOs, hebicides, pesticides, and chemical fertilizers, while killing the bees that pollinate the crops.

—The extractive industries—energy, mining, fracking, and timber—that maximize their profits by destroying the environment and the water supply.

—The Israel Lobby that controls US Middle East policy and is committing genocide against the Palestinians just as the US committed genocide against native Americans. Israel is using the US to eliminate sovereign countries that stand in Israell’s way.

What convinces me that the Oligarchy intends to steal the election is the vast difference between the presstitutes’ reporting and the facts on the ground.

According to the presstitutes, Hillary is so far ahead that there is no point in Trump supporters bothering to vote. Hillary has won the election before the vote. Hillary has been declared a 93% sure winner.

I am yet to see one Hillary yard sign, but Trump signs are everywhere. Reports I receive are that Hillary’s public appearances are unattended but Trumps are so heavily attended that people have to be turned away. This is a report from a woman in Florida:

“Trump has pulled huge numbers all over FL while campaigning here this week. I only see Trump signs and stickers in my wide travels. I dined at a Mexican restaurant last night. Two women my age sitting behind me were talking about how they had tried to see Trump when he came to Tallahassee. They left work early, arriving at the venue at 4:00 for a 6:00 rally. The place was already over capacity so they were turned away. It turned out that there were so many people there by 2:00 that the doors had to be opened to them. The women said that the crowds present were a mix of races and ages.”

I know the person who gave me this report and have no doubt whatsoever as to its veracity.

I also receive from readers similiar reports from around the country.

This is how the theft of the election is supposed to work:

The media concentrated in a few corporate hands has gone all out to convince not only Americans but also the world, that Donald Trump is such an unacceptable candidate that he has lost the election before the vote.

By controllng the explanation, when the election is stolen those who challenge the stolen election are without a foundation in the media. All media reports will say that it was a run away victory for Hillary over the misogynist immigrant-hating Trump.

And liberal, progressive opinion will be relieved and off guard as Hillary takes us into nuclear war.

That the Oligarchy intends to steal the election from the American people is verified by the officially reported behavior of the voting machines in early voting in Texas. The NPR presstitutes have declared that Hillary is such a favorite that even Republican Texas is up for grabs in the election.

If this is the case, why was it necessary for the voting machines to be programmed to change Trump votes to Hillary votes? Those voters who noted that they voted Trump but were recorded Hillary complained. The election officials, claiming a glitch (which only went one way), changed to paper ballots. But who will count them? No “glitches” caused Hillary votes to go to Trump, only Trump votes to go to Hillary.

The most brilliant movie of our time was The Matrix. This movie captured the life of Americans manipulated by a false reality, only in the real America there is insufficient awareness and no Neo, except possibly Donald Trump, to challenge the system. Americans of all stripes—academics, scholars, journalists, Republicans, Democrats, right-wing, left-wing, US Representatives, US Senators, Presidents, corporate moguls and brainwashed Americans and foreigners—live in a false reality.

In the United States today a critical presidential election is in process in which not a single important issue is addressed by Hillary and the presstitutes. This is total failure. Democracy, once the hope of the world, has totally failed in the United States of America. Trump is correct. The American people must restore the accountability of government to the people.

Hi! My name is _______ and I’m a citizen of _______ County. I’m calling today because it’s recently come out in the news that Mark Malloch-Brown, the Vice Chairman of Smartmatic voting machines, is also the Vice Chairman of George Soros’ Open Society Foundation – and the Open Society Foundation is one of Hillary’s largest supporters. This is a huge conflict of interest, and jeopardizes the results of our election. We must not allow our election to be influenced by foreign actors and private companies. What we need to do immediately is exercise our Conflict of Interest Clause in our voting machine contract, and switch to the fallback voting process, and paper ballots. This alone will keep our election open, honest, and accurate.

Derrick Broze of TheConsciousResistance.com joins us once again to continue our conversation on agorism and counter-economic activity. Today we discuss Freedom Cells, an idea for self-organized peer to peer groups that assert sovereignty, create alternative institutions, and innovate counter-economic activity.

Don’t vote for evil; arrest evil. Despite this being the obvious and lawful response, many people find difficulty expressing this required leadership (more here).

I am among hundreds in alternative media, academia, and various professions able to easily explain, document, and prove that Rep and Dem “leaderships” are dictatorial rogue state criminals. In this rogue state, the US does not have:

a president

chosen by election

after independent debates.

What the US has is:

a rogue state dictator

chosen by election fraud

after bullshit propaganda.

Until this breakthrough occurs, 3rd parties (and humanity) are powerless to oppose criminally-complicit corporate media, election fraud, and assassinations (such as Martin King) if they ever challenge the Left and Right arms of the one rogue US political body.

Simple strategy: have strong offense and defense

Because Republicans and Democrats are Left and Right arms of one rogue state political body, humanity and 3rd parties need to both strong policy proposals (offense), along with clear points defending against Left and Right rogue state crimes.

The strongest defense is to explain, document, and prove criminal policies centered in war, money and lying.

Americans for Hillary or Trump are voting with relative ignorance to continue these policies, with 95%+ who would never agree if honestly briefed on the facts. Once informed, unless one wishes to bond with such evil and bullshit (an academic term), one cannot vote for it. If one wishes to stand as an American under our ideals and Constitution, one must demand arrests for ongoing horrific crimes that annually kill in the millions, harm billions, and loot trillions.

Likely treason for lying to US military, ordering unlawful attack and invasions of foreign lands, and causing thousands of US military deaths.

Crimes Against Humanity for ongoing intentional policy of poverty that’s killed over 400 million human beings just since 1995 (~75% children; more deaths than from all wars in Earth’s recorded history).

The strongest offense is up to you, with Greens and Libertarians stating platforms, author diogenes stating ten excellent planks, and my pointing to solutions worth literally ~$1,000,000 per US household, world peace, and factual communication.

The brighter future ready right now:

The top three benefits each of monetary reform and public banking total ~$1,000,000 for the average American household, and would be received nearly instantly. Fed Chair Janet Yellen publicly acknowledges monetary reform as described below, but continues a history of criminal fraud in her lawful fiduciary responsibility to truthfully provide what you’re about to read. The data below include evidence of a .01% oligarchy criminally looting tens of trillions of our dollars.

Monetary reform is the creation of debt-free money by government for the direct payment of public goods and services. Creating money as a positive number is an obvious move from our existing Robber Baron-era system of only creating debt owed to privately-owned banks (a negative number) as what we use for money. Our Orwellian “non-monetary supply” of adding negative numbers forever causes today’s tragic-comic increasing and unpayable total debt. You learned these mechanics of positive and negative numbers in middle school, and already have the education and life experience to conclude with Emperor’s New Clothes absolute certainty that accelerating total debt is the opposite of having money. As a National Board Certified and Advanced Placement Macroeconomics teacher, I affirm this is also exactly what is taught to all economics students.

The public benefits of reversing this creature of Robber Barons are game-changing and near-instant. We the People must demand these, as .01% oligarchs have no safe way to do so without admission of literal criminal fraud by claiming that debt is its opposite of money.

The top 3 game-changing benefits of monetary reform:

We pay the national debt in proportion to removing private banks’ ability to create what we use for money as debt in order to prevent inflation. We retire national debt forever.

We fully fund infrastructure that returns more economic output than investment cost for triple upgrades: the best infrastructure we can imagine, up to full-employment, and lower overall costs.

Public banking creates at-cost and in-house credit to pay for public goods and services without the expense and for-profit interest of selling debt-securities. North Dakota has a public bank for at-cost credit that results in it being the only state with annual increasing surpluses rather than deficits.

CAFRs (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) stash “rainy day” funds no longer required with a credit line from a public bank. In addition, the so-called “retirement funds” currently deliver net returns of just a few percent on good years, and negative returns on bad years (here, here). California’s ~14,000 various government entities’ CAFRs have a sampled-data total estimate of $8 trillion in surplus taxpayer assets ($650,000 non-disclosed assets per household, among California’s ~12.5 million households).

$1,000,000 of benefits per US household:

California’s CAFR data of ~$650,000 of assets per household is evidence of huge cash assets of similar magnitude in every state.

Ending state taxes in California to pay a budget of ~$170 billion saves each household ~$15,000, with similar savings in every state.

~$30,000 per household savings annually: the American public would no longer pay over $400 billion every year for national debt interest payments (because almost 30% of the debt is intra-governmental transfers, this is a savings of ~$300 billion/year). If lending is run at a non-profit rate or at nominal interest returned to the American public (for infrastructure, schools, fire and police protection, etc.) rather than profiting the banks, the savings to the US public is conservatively $2 trillion (1). If the US Federal government increased the money supply by 3% a year to keep up with population increase and economic growth, we could spend an additional $500 billion yearly into public programs, or refund it as a public dividend (2). This savings would allow us to simplify or eliminate the income tax (3). The estimated savings of eliminating the income tax with all its complexity, loopholes, and evasion is $250 billion/year (4). The total benefits for monetary reform are conservatively over three trillion dollars every year to the American public. Three trillion is $3,000,000,000,000. This saves the ~100 million US households an average of $30,000 every year. Another way to calculate the savings is to figure those amounts per $50,000 annual household income (for example, if your household earns $100,000/year, you save ~$60,000 every year with these reforms). This savings represents a 60% raise for every US household’s income.

Please understand that I represent likely hundreds of thousands of professionals making factual claims with objective evidence anyone with a high school-level of education can verify.

Wait, what? We’re being looted how much???

To also show the offense potential, let’s take a few moments to document where we are with being looted by the trillions, and what this means to the average US family.

Department of Defense looting:

The US Department of Defense (DoD) Inspector General issued an audit report in August 2016 stating that DoD claims to have “lost” $6.5 trillion in year-end accounting, with $2.8 trillion “missing” in the last fiscal quarter alone. This is euphemistically termed “unaccounted,” and literally means that DoD agrees they received these funds, agrees the funds are gone, and then claims to not have records of where the money went.

Of course, this never happens with lawful accounting because records always show where the money goes. This would be like your bank agreeing they received a large deposit from you, agreeing the money was gone, and not refunding your account while claiming no further information of this “unaccountable,” “lost,” and “missing” money. The most common historical explanation of governments “losing” money is, of course, embezzlement to enrich an oligarchy.

$6.5 trillion equals:

~$65,000 per US household.

Embezzling a billion dollars from a US military project 6,500 times.

Embezzling a billion dollars every day for 18 years.

An Inspector General is supposed to be head of an independent and non-partisan auditing organization to discover and investigate waste, embezzlement, and fraud. They are supposed to act as “watchdogs” to ensure government agencies are transparent and lawful, with power to subpoena and take testimonies under oath.

You may recall that DoD’s claims of trillions of our tax dollars somehow going missing isn’t new, and reported as $2.3 trillion by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld on September 10, 2001 as “a matter of life and death” the day before a claimed airplane bulls-eyed into the Pentagon’s accounting department, killing the very accountants tasked to find the “missing” money. I have more on this topic with videos here.

A few more data points of more trillions of our dollars looted from us by oligarchs:

Emperor’s New Clothes status and challenge

The Emperor’s New Clothes is the story of current wars and central “monetary” policy: “official” stories easily and completely refuted by anyone caring to look at the facts. All three are tragic-comedies because even children see the truth with just a few moments of attention.

Addressing three topics for one academic paper may seem ambitious, and that said, here’s what I see:

War law is crystal-clear in letter and intent, yet continuously violated in Wars of Aggression by former imperial nations with impunity.

These powers create what we use for money as debt, with mathematic consequences like adding negative numbers forever: aggregate debt becomes tragic-comic. “Debt” is called its opposite, “money,” with impunity.

These deceptions and failure to address obvious solutions are only possible from public discovery through continuous propaganda from “officials” and corporate media.

Historic oligarchies usually control government (to dictate policy; often war to steal valuable resources), what is used for money (to enrich themselves and pay minions), and media (to control spin to shape public opinion). Therefore, connecting all three elements in our world of the present, that are again obvious and immediate when pointed-out, will contribute to our awakening and realization of obvious solutions.

Our analogy of The Emperor’s New Clothes has government officials, messengers (corporate media), and many in the public claim that political leadership is “covered” by the noblest of appearances, and those who fail to perceive this are either “unfit for his position” or “hopelessly stupid.” The game-changing central fact, of course, is that the emperor is naked and not even close to wearing clothes.

These naked facts are easily explained, objectively observed, and proved for anyone caring to look. Indeed, a child points it all out with easy confidence, irrefutable accuracy, and proves the “official story” has zero credibility for any objective observer.

In the story, upon public initial conversations of the facts, the emperor continues the pretense, along with “officials.” However, the illusion is shattered within moments as the “whole town” began speaking about what was clear for everyone upon minimal attention.

If we had to document the facts that refute the official story, we would probably define a few key terms:

clothes: material for the human body to be worn for adornment and coverage.

wear: in context of clothing, to have clothes intentionally placed on one’s body. This is opposed to having clothes in one’s closet or dresser not on one’s body.

With just a little work, we refute the “official story,” and use the facts to make ridiculous any argument in support of this official story.

And importantly, if we did have to document our evidence even though clear to a child’s examination within moments, it would take some time to write and read, just as our arguments will take with current unlawful wars, bankster looting, and corporate media lying to “cover” these obvious crimes.

And this said, if it were true that wars, bank looting, and corporate media lying are just as easy to prove as in the Emperor’s New Clothes, wouldn’t you want to invest the time to clearly see for yourself, and wouldn’t you want such destructive farce seen for what it is by the wider community?

When does Emperor’s New Clothes victory come???

Nobody knows.

As guests on this planet and not management, we can only control and voice what we can. In our perilous state, we certainly can voice the facts as clearly as we can, and as the boy in the story point-out naked empire with irrefutable clarity.

SIMON JOHNSON: The American democracy was not given to us on a platter. It is not ours for all time, irrespective of our efforts. Either people organize and they find political leadership to take this on, or we are going to be in big trouble, okay?… That’s absolutely the heart of the problem. I would also say and tell you, and emphasize, these people will not come out and debate with us. The heads of these companies or their representatives, they will not come out. They’re afraid. They don’t have the substance. They don’t have the arguments. We have the evidence. They have the lobbyists. And that’s all they have.

BILL MOYERS: They’ve got the power, the muscle, the money.

SIMON JOHNSON: They have money.

BILL MOYERS: You just have the arguments. You just have the facts. On your side.

SIMON JOHNSON: Absolutely. That’s exactly what it comes down to.

Are arrests of obvious “leaders” for obvious crimes a leverage point?

I say this is perhaps our strongest leverage point: public demand for arrests BECAUSE the gap between the law and the crimes is so large. As with our story, once the public reaches a critical mass point, nobody will defend the .01% criminals. President Kennedy framed our situation perfectly:

“No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion.” ~President Kennedy, June 10, 1963

Perhaps the easiest area for arrests is for lie-started and illegal Wars of Aggression, because the wars are in Orwellian opposite of what two US treaties require: no armed attack ever unless under attack by another nation’s government.

Importantly, corporate media “leadership” is just as guilty, as their “covering” this crime is an essential element to fool We the People, and lie our military to death and injury from unlawfully attacking and invading other nations (literally the crime of treason to levy war on our own military).

Colleagues and I with peer-reviewed papers for professionals and academics are unaware of any challenge to our claims that US wars are not close to lawful. That is, we have never encountered anyone or read anything anywhere with an argument like, “War law states (a, b, c), so the US wars are legal because (d, e, f).” If you have such examples, I’d love to see them.

Let’s consider an analogy that is fitting, and would be obvious:

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Barack Obama drive a military tank together as their “job.” However, these facts are the problems:

They drive it on the wrong side of public freeways.

Obama drives the tank intentionally over cars, Cheney mans the cannon to blast targets of choice, and W. Bush is on the turret firing a machine gun.

This has been happening since 2002 with millions killed, tens of millions harmed, and with trillions of dollars in damage (ok, that’s the real war’s cost and not possible with one tank, but work with me on this analogy).

Their “official reasons” why this is legal:

In emergencies, sometimes drivers have to violate the law.

Mrs. Cheney, based on our best intelligence, is pregnant and about to deliver.

The three people in the tank make a carpool, and are given additional driving privileges.

The tank has white decals stating it’s a zero-emissions vehicle.

Cheney’s shelling of a wedding is “pretty well confirmed” as an intelligent choice to take out several terrorist families in one strike, and “well worth the cost.”

Of course, anyone caring to refute these “official reasons” in writing would compose an essay similar to the one you’re reading to refute all claims with sufficient documentation that their actions are not even close to lawful, with all “reasons” known to be lies as they are told. The short version:

Bush, Cheney, and Obama create an illegal emergency, and are not responding to one.

Mrs. Cheney is 74 years old, with no evidence of pregnancy, and with near-certain biological impossibility to be pregnant. The three men never drive to Ms. Cheney, with an ongoing claim of “pregnancy” since 2002.

A tank is not allowed on a freeway, driving on the wrong side of the freeway is illegal, and that three people make a carpool is not relevant.

White decals would not apply to a tank, and this point is not relevant to the crime of mass-murder and injuries, with trillions in damages.

All three men commit mass-murder in Orwellian contradiction to law, with their “reasons” all known lies and ridiculous attempts to deflect from OBVIOUS murder.

The tragic-comedy of our analogy is that this death toll would be stupidly bad to endure, but the damages from lie-started and illegal Wars of Aggression are exponentially worse.

3rd parties want help? Contact me

If 3rd party candidates are willing to tell the Emperor’s New Clothes obvious truths as professionally documented in this essay, I’m willing to help: Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu

Carl Herman is a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History; also credentialed in Mathematics. He worked with both US political parties over 18 years and two UN Summits with the citizen’s lobby, RESULTS, for US domestic and foreign policy to end poverty. He can be reached at Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu

Note:Examiner.com has blocked public access to my articles on their site (and from other whistleblowers), so some links in my previous work are blocked. If you’d like to search for those articles other sites may have republished, use words from the article title within the blocked link. Or, go tohttp://archive.org/web/, paste the expired link into the box, click “Browse history,” then click onto the screenshots of that page for each time it was screen-shot and uploaded to webarchive. I’ll update as “hobby time” allows; including my earliest work from 2009 to 2011 (blocked author pages: here, here).

War law: Crystal-clear to see in letter and intent, the easiest way for YOU to help end dictatorial US rogue state empire by demanding arrests for OBVIOUS lie-started Wars of Aggression. Your choice is YES or NO for war, not Trump or Clinton for only war

“No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion.” ~President Kennedy, June 10, 1963

“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” ~ 1st Amendment to the US Constitution

Perhaps the widest gap between what is lawful and what our .01% oligarchs do is in the ongoing armed attacks on other nations. This is also perhaps the most important policy measured by human lives, resources, and money.

Because war law is so easy to understand in crystal-clear letter and intent, supported by two treaties that the US Constitution requires as our “supreme law,” and US military are required by Oath and training to refuse unlawful orders (with officers required to arrest those who issue them), perhaps also this is a leverage point for everyday people to:

Accurately and confidently know the law.

Demand arrests of Left and Right US “leaders” because the wars are not even close to lawful.

Cause a lawful end to the dictatorial US rogue state.

War law is just as easy to understand as “stop sign law” when driving, and far easier than most sports laws, such as when a football punt is or is not legal, or baseball’s “infield fly” rule. Because everyday people care enough to know traffic law and sports rules, the idea of knowing war law can be accomplished by refreshing what you’ve already learned by reading this article (and confirming its accuracy as needed).

Let’s look.

As you know from education and your real-world life, laws are simply rules.

A well-designed rule helps produce a desired result, such as traffic law to make driving as safe and efficient as possible, and baseball rules to create a fair and fun cooperative competition/game. For examples, in the US we all drive on the right side of the road, and in baseball the team batting gets three outs before the other team has their chance at bat.

Law is meant to be crystal-clear so that all participants can best accomplish an agreed-upon result. A law that is unclear or unhelpful for the result/game must be redesigned or removed, while clear and helpful laws are appreciated and enforced (law enforcement and umpires in our two examples). Our examples in driving and baseball are indeed clear rules that everyone knows and plays by. Important to our application for war law, if a baseball team pretended they could have four outs, this deception would be recognized and immediately stopped by the involved community’s strong understanding of the law (including the fans who would strongly voice this obvious violation).

War law, as we’re about to document and prove, is clear and helpful for the outcome of denying military armed attack as a foreign policy. This is an outcome 95%+ of humanity agree is desirable, especially after all our families’ awful sacrifices through two world wars.

Conversely, war-mongers for empire will do their best to be silent about war law, lie that it’s so unclear that any dictatorial claim of “self-defense” is valid, and take every evasive maneuver imaginable for the public (especially military and law enforcement) to never understand war law and/or never recognize how US wars are Orwellian unlawful.

To give you the punch line now for clarity of what war law states, and without disagreement our colleagues and I are aware of from anyone who points to the law with explanation:

Unless a nation can justify its military use as self-defense from armed attack from a nation’s government that is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation,” all other acts of war are unlawful. The legal definition of “self-defense” ends when the attack terminates. In general legal definition, no party is allowed use of force under the justification of “self-defense” if the law can be applied for redress and remedy.

That’s the letter of the law. The intent is soooo strongly worded in both relevant treaties, as you’ll see, and is simply to end the scourge of wars chosen by governments as foreign policy (in historical context of empires looting the world for resources: natural and human).

Our condition today is of OBVIOUSLY unlawful Wars of Aggression (and started with lies known to false as they were told), as the facts to follow clearly demonstrate for anyone caring to look and apply basic high school-level of education already learned.

Importantly, Left and Right “leaders” and corporate media, including Clinton and Trump, will never ever ever ever ever remind us that war is illegal, with current wars in Orwellian opposition.

The appropriate “vote” of We the People for this presidential election is “No” for more illegal war, and “Yes” to stop the wars and arrest those who orchestrated them. Without public demand, these illegal wars will only continue.

1. Accurately and confidently know the law

Unlawful Wars of Aggression: The US/UK/Israel “official story” is that current wars are lawful because they are “self-defense.” The Emperor’s New Clothesfact here is that “self-defense” means something quite narrow and specific in war law, and US/UK/Israel armed attacks on so many nations in current and past wars are not even close to the definition of “self-defense.”

Addressing three nations and several wars again seems ambitious for one academic paper, and again, these are all simple variations of one method:

Ignore war law.

Lie to blame the victim and claim “self-defense.”

“Officials” and corporate media never state the Emperor’s New Clothes simple and obvious facts of war law and war lies.

Proving unlawful wars with massive deception is easier when the scope is broadened to see the same elements in three cases.

Importantly, a nation can use military, police, and civilians in self-defense from any attack upon the nation. This is similar to the legal definition of “self-defense” for you or I walking down the street: we cannot attack anyone unless either under attack or imminent threat. And, if under attack, we can use any reasonable force in self-defense, including lethal.

Two world wars begat two treaties to end nations’ armed attacks forever. They are crystal-clear in content and context:

Kellogg-Briand Pact (General treaty for renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy as official title)

United Nations Charter.

Both are listed in the US State Department’s annual publication, Treaties in Force (2013 edition pages 466 and 493).

This is important because all of us with Oaths to the US Constitution are sworn to honorably refuse all unlawful war orders; military officers are sworn to arrest those who issue them. Indeed, we suffer criminal dishonor if we obey orders for armed attack when they are not “self-defense,” and family dishonor to so easily reject the legal victory won from all our families’ sacrifices through two world wars.

Treaty 1. Kellogg-Briand: General treaty for renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy:

The High Contracting Parties solemly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.

ARTICLE II

The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.”

So, in the most clear framing of a rule as possible, the first two parts of the treaty state “never war” and “always peace” to resolve conflicts.

Treaty 2. United Nations Charter:

It’s helpful to understand what the UN is not. The only area of legal authority of the UN is security/use of force; all other areas are advise for individual nation’s legislature’s consideration. The UN is not global government. It is a global agreement to end wars of choice outside of a very narrow legal definition of national self-defense against another nation’s armed attack.

The preamble of the United Nations includes to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war… to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and… to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used…”

The UN purpose includes: “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace…”

Article 2:

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter…

Article 24: In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.

Article 25: The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

Article 37: Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.

Article 39: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40: In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable.

Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the judicial branch of the UN. Their definition of “armed attack” is by a nation’s government. Because the leadership of the CIA and FBI both reported that they had no evidence the Afghan government had any role in the 9/11 terrorism, the US is unable to claim Article 51 protection for military action in Afghanistan (or Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Iran [here, here, here], Russia, or claims about ISIS or Khorasans). The legal classification of what happened on 9/11 is an act of terrorism, a criminal act, not an armed attack by another nation’s government.

The US use of force oversees could be a legal application of Article 51 if, and only if, the US could meet the burden of proof of an imminent threat that was not being responded to by the Security Council. To date, the US has not made such an argument.

American Daniel Webster helped create the legal definition of national self-defense in the Caroline Affair as “necessity of that self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” The US attack on Afghanistan came nearly a month after the 9/11 terrorism. Article 51 only allows self-defense until the Security Council takes action; which they did in two Resolutions beginning the day after 9/11 (1368 and 1373) claiming jurisdiction in the matter.

In conclusion, unless a nation can justify its military use as self-defense from armed attack from a nation’s government that is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation,” all other acts of war are unlawful. The legal definition of “self-defense” ends when the attack terminates. In general legal definition, no party is allowed use of force under the justification of “self-defense” if the law can be applied for redress and remedy.

Another area to clarify is the US 1973 War Powers Act (WPA).The authorization by Congress for US presidential discretion for military action in Afghanistan and Iraq references WPA. This act, in response to the Vietnam War, reframes the Founders’ intent of keeping the power of war in the hands of Congress. It also expressly limits the president to act within US treaty obligations; the principle treaty of use of war being the UN Charter.

This means that presidential authority as commander-in-chief must always remain within the limitations of the UN Charter to be lawful orders. It’s not enough for Congress to authorize use of force; that force must always and only be within the narrow legal definition of self-defense clearly explained in the UN Charter. Of course, we can anticipate that if a government wanted to engage in unlawful war today, they would construct their propaganda to sell the war as “defensive.” The future of humanity to be safe from the scourge of war is therefore dependent upon our collective ability to discern lawful defensive wars from unlawful Wars of Aggression covered in BS–Emperor’s New Clothesclaims of self-defense.

The first round of US current wars, the attack of Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, continues this history as a deliberate act of unlawful war, not defense that was “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” The burden of proof the US would have to provide is imminent threat of another attack in order to justify self-defense. US Ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, in his letter to the UN Security Council invoking Article 51 for the attack upon Afghanistan mentions only “ongoing threat;” which does not satisfy this burden of proof.

Article 51 requires self-defensive war coming from an attack by a nation’s government, which the CIA and FBI refute in the case of the Afghan government with the terrorism on 9/11. Self-defense ends when the attack ends. The US war began four weeks after 9/11 ended; making the US war one of choice and not defense. Article 51 ends self-defense claims when the UN Security Council acts. Resolution 1373 provides clear language of international cooperation and justice under the law, with no authorization of force.

This evidence doesn’t require the light of the UN Charter’s spirit of its laws, but I’ll add it: humanity rejected war as a policy option and requires nations to cooperate for justice under that law. The US has instead embraced and still embraces war with its outcomes of death, misery, poverty, and fear expressly against the wishes of humanity and the majority of Americans. These acts are clearly unlawful and should be refused and stopped by all men and women in military, government and law enforcement.

Some war liars argue that UN Security Council Resolution 687 from 1991 authorizes resumption of force from the previous Gulf War. This resolution declared a formal cease-fire; which means exactly what it says: stop the use of force. The resolution was declared by UNSC and held in their jurisdiction; that is, no individual nation has authority to supersede UNSC’s power to continue or change the status of the cease-fire. The idea that the US and/or UK can authorize use of force under a UNSC cease-fire is as criminal as your neighbor shooting one of your family members and claiming that because police have authority to shoot dangerous people he can do it.

The categories of crime for armed attacks outside US treaty limits of law are:

“Sir Michael testified that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw preferred to take the legal position that the laws governing war were vague and open to broad interpretation: “He took the view that I was being very dogmatic and that international law was pretty vague and that he wasn’t used to people taking such a firm position.”

“UK Attorney General Lord Goldsmith testified he “changed his mind” against the unanimous legal opinion of all 27 of the Foreign Office attorneys to agree with the US legal argument that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 authorized use of force at the discretion of any nation’s choice. This testimony is also criminally damning: arguing that an individual nation has the right to choose war violates the purpose, letter and spirit of the UN Charter, as well as violates 1441 that reaffirms jurisdiction of the Security Council in governance of the issue. This Orwellian argument contradicts the express purpose of the Charter to prevent individual nations from engaging in wars.

“Moreover, the US and UK “legal argument” is in further Orwellian opposition to their UN Ambassadors’ statements when 1441 was passed that this did not authorize any use of force:

[T]his resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about “automaticity” and “hidden triggers” — the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response… There is no “automaticity” in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12.

“The Chilcot inquiry was initiated from public outrage against UK participation in the Iraq War, with public opinion having to engage a second time to force hearings to become public rather than closed and secret. The hearings were not authorized to consider criminal charges, which is the next battle for UK public opinion.”

The UN Charter is the principle law to end wars; designed by the US to produce that result. That said, West Point Grads Against the War have further legal arguments of all the violations of war from US attack and invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, including further analysis of the UN Charter and expert supporting testimony. Another resource for documentation and analysis is David Swanson’s War is a Crime. Ironically, Americans would never allow a favorite sport such as baseball or football to be similarly destroyed by such Emperor’s New Clothes lies to those rules/laws.

Lawful war analysis: Negroponte’s letter invokes a legal Charter Article of self-defense in contrast with the loss of over 3,000 lives on 9/11. The letter portends legal evidence of al-Qaeda’s “central role” in the attacks and claims military response is appropriate because of al-Qaeda’s ongoing threat and continued training of terrorists. This reasoning argues for a reinterpretation of self-defense to include pre-emptive attack while lying in omission that such an argument is tacit agreement of current action being outside the law.

Importantly, after accurately defining “self-defense” in war, the JAG authors/attorneys explicitly state on page 6 that war is illegal unless a nation is under attack from another nation’s government, or can provide evidence of imminent threat of such attack:

“Anticipatory self-defense, whether labeled anticipatory or preemptive, must be distinguished from preventive self-defense. Preventive self-defense—employed to counter non-imminent threats—is illegal under international law.”

However, despite the US Army’s law handbook’s accurate disclosure of the legal meaning of “self-defense” in war, they then ignore this meaning to claim “self-defense” as a lawful reason for US wars without further explanation (details here).

President George Washington’s Farewell Address, the culmination of his 45 years of political experience, warned of the primary threat to America as “the impostures of pretended patriotism” from people within our own government who would destroy Constitutional limits in order to obtain tyrannical power:

“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency.”

“I carefully examined the President’s messages, to ascertain what he himself had said and proved upon the point. The result of this examination was to make the impression, that taking for true, all the President states as facts, he falls far short of proving his justification; and that the President would have gone farther with his proof, if it had not been for the small matter, that the truth would not permit him… Now I propose to try to show, that the whole of this, — issue and evidence — is, from beginning to end, the sheerest deception.”

Lincoln also wrote that “pre-emptive” wars were lies, and “war at pleasure.”

Those of us working to end these illegal Wars of Aggression have found zero refutations of our documentation that address war law. All we’ve ever found are denial and unsubstantiated claims of “self-defense” while having to lie about the legal limits in that term.

Note: other sections of that paper may be useful that just as clearly demonstrate Israel’s illegal war on Gaza, criminally complicit corporate media to “cover” these crimes, all “reasons” for these wars were known to be false as they were told, and the fundamental fraud of creating what is used for money as debt.

2. Demand arrests of Left and Right US “leaders” because the wars are not even close to lawful

Therefore, We the People have an obvious solution: lawful arrests of .01% “leaders” for the most egregious crimes centering in war and lies to start them.

This is a 1st Amendment responsibility to maintain our constitutional republic under law rather than what we’ve become with war: “leaders” dictating/saying what we can do completely removed from limitations of the law. Left and Right .01% “leaders” completely violate the rules, and only from public ignorance with corporate media propaganda.

Let’s consider an analogy that is fitting, and would be obvious:

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Barack Obama drive a military tank together as their “job.” However, these facts are the problems:

They drive it on the wrong side of public freeways.

Obama drives the tank intentionally over cars, Cheney mans the cannon to blast targets of choice, and W. Bush is on the turret firing a machine gun.

This has been happening since 2002 with millions killed, tens of millions harmed, and with trillions of dollars in damage (ok, that’s the real war’s cost and not possible with one tank, but work with me on this analogy).

Their “official reasons” why this is legal:

In emergencies, sometimes drivers have to violate the law.

Mrs. Cheney, based on our best intelligence, is pregnant and about to deliver.

The three people in the tank make a carpool, and are given additional driving privileges.

The tank has white decals stating it’s a zero-emissions vehicle.

Cheney’s shelling of a wedding is “pretty well confirmed” as an intelligent choice to take out several terrorist families in one strike, and “well worth the cost.”

Of course, anyone caring to refute these “official reasons” in writing would compose an essay similar to the one you’re reading to refute all claims with sufficient documentation that their actions are not even close to lawful, with all “reasons” known to be lies as they are told. The short version:

Bush, Cheney, and Obama create an illegal emergency, and are not responding to one.

Mrs. Cheney is 74 years old, with no evidence of pregnancy, and with near-certain biological impossibility to be pregnant.

A tank is not allowed on a freeway, driving on the wrong side of the freeway is illegal, and that three people make a carpool is not relevant.

White decals would not apply to a tank, and this point is not relevant to the crime of mass-murder and injuries, with trillions in damages.

All three men commit mass-murder in Orwellian contradiction to law, with their “reasons” all known lies and ridiculous attempts to deflect from OBVIOUS murder.

The tragic-comedy of our analogy is that the damages from lie-started and illegal Wars of Aggression are exponentially worse. The actual categories of crime include:

Likely treason for lying to US military, ordering unlawful attack and invasions of foreign lands, and causing thousands of US military deaths.

Crimes Against Humanity for ongoing intentional policy of poverty that’s killed over 400 million human beings just since 1995 (~75% children; more deaths than from all wars in Earth’s recorded history).

Our condition requiring YOUR voice is what Benjamin Franklin predicted would be the eventual outcome of the United States. On September 18, 1787, just after signing the US Constitution, Ben met with members of the press. He was asked what kind of government America would have. Franklin warned: “A republic, if you can keep it.” In his speech to the Constitutional Convention, Franklin admonished:

“This [U.S. Constitution] is likely to be administered for a course of years and then end in despotism… when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.” – The Quotable Founding Fathers, pg. 39.

These warnings extend to all social science teachers of the present:

“As educators in the field of history–social science, we want our students to… understand the value, the importance, and the fragility of democratic institutions. We want them to realize that only a small fraction of the world’s population (now or in the past) has been fortunate enough to live under a democratic form of government.” – History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools, pgs. 2, 7-8

Do you have the intellectual integrity and moral courage to at least act with the honesty of a child to speak the Emperor’s New Clothes truth? Remember, I’m just asking you to use your voice in a democratic republic to ask US military and various law enforcement to honor their Oaths and do the job we pay them for: protect and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. There is no greater enemy than those committing treason to war-murder US military by lying them into invasive illegal Wars of Aggression.

3. Cause a lawful end to the dictatorial US rogue state

In conclusion, this essay has reminded you of what you already know: laws are meant to be simple and helpful, what you’ve suspected about the wars is demonstrated as true with a few clear facts, and that your voice is essential if we are to maintain our republic from devolving into dictatorship (literally being dictated/told what the rules are rather than knowing them ourselves).

To remind you of other history that demonstrates this has been an ongoing problem of what is most accurately described as a rogue state: a “top ten” list of state crimes supporting today’s arrests in a constitutional republic:

The CIA had several covert wars; perhaps most important in today’s context of war on Iran: “Operation Ajax” that overthrew Iran’s democracy and installed a US-friendly and brutal dictator. When that dictator was overthrown and Iran refused another, the US aided Iraq to unlawfully invade and attack Iran from 1980-1988; killing up to a million Iranians. If the US lied and acted twice to unlawfully overthrew Iran’s democracy within many of our own lifetimes, shouldn’t we assume first another lie-started unlawful war today?

The two “reasons” for war with Iran are as false as the “reasons” for war with Iraq: Iran never threatened Israel, and Iran’s nuclear energy and medicine programs are IAEA-verified as completely safe and lawful.

If We the People don’t speak, we will have more of the same.

And if We the People speak as simply and confidently to stop a tank driving on the wrong side of the freeway or a baseball team trying to get four outs instead of three, we’ll win this contest with ease.

National security and a brighter future is not a function of fear, manipulation, and psychopathic control. Our best security follows cooperation, justice under the law, dignity, and freedom. Surely you recognize that all promised natural rights in America are now gone, and the 99.99% are herded by the .01% as their work animals.

Working for your best imagined self-expression of virtue may include a unique contribution from the inside of your agency. You, as Darth Vader and Professor Snape in fictions that are popular for strong resonance to a real story we all want told, can reclaim your hearts and honor to be our heroes.

Truly, aren’t you ready now to re-embrace love and honor as your path?

Please consider the wisdom of a “Scrooge conversion” to act for the benefit of all humanity rather than your self-proclaimed loveless “masters.” From Dickens’ 1843 text:

“Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all, and infinitely more; and to Tiny Tim, who did not die, he was a second father. He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world. Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them; for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the outset; and knowing that such as these would be blind anyway, he thought it quite as well that they should wrinkle up their eyes in grins, as have the malady in less attractive forms. His own heart laughed: and that was quite enough for him.”

4-minute video of Darth Vader’s choice to serve love, family, and community rather than vicious psychopathic hatred:

Public attraction to the stories of Star Wars and the Harry Potter books/movies recognize that our society’s jump to civilized relations for all of us might require support from people within the “dark side” acting as covert agents for building a brighter future.

Both Darth Vader (see video) and Professor Snape realized they were only tools of powers above them, things to be manipulated rather than sentient beings of free will. The severest irony is they both recognized their service to the “dark side” included deaths of their loved-ones and even themselves whenever convenient to their “masters.” That was Snape’s ending, although his path was taken with honor to infiltrate the darkness (4-minute video):

But that should be an obvious conclusion to those working in the real-world version of these analogies. We see it in the macro picture of millions killed every year through war and poverty, and in micro with individuals who we know.

For years, I have recommended Truth and Reconciliation to exchange full truth and return of public assets for no prosecution and a guaranteed provided comfortable retirement. Indeed, I am prepared to speak on the .01%’s corporate media to present this option with full confidence it is the most efficient in ending the crimes and avoiding a violent end-game as the .01% are recognized for who they really are by the 99.99%.

“Every day, I saw more evidence about the evils humankind will inflict on their fellow humans to gain or maintain power…What is more, those who choose not to empathize may enable real monsters. For without ever committing an act of outright evil ourselves, we collude with it through our own apathy…If you choose to use your status and influence to raise your voice on behalf of those who have no voice; if you choose to identify not only with the powerful, but with the powerless; if you retain the ability to imagine yourself into the lives of those who do not have your advantages, then it will not only be your proud families who celebrate your existence, but thousands and millions of people whose reality you have helped transform for the better. We do not need magic to change the world, we carry all the power we need inside ourselves already: we have the power to imagine better.” – J. K. Rowling, Harvard Commencement, June 5, 2008.

Will you continue to defend your loveless and psychopathic “masters,” or reclaim your hearts and humanity for the Everyday People these .01% annually kill in the millions, harm in the billions, and loot by the trillions of dollars? Playing For Change’sartistic 3-minutes:

Carl Herman is a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History; also credentialed in Mathematics. He worked with both US political parties over 18 years and two UN Summits with the citizen’s lobby, RESULTS, for US domestic and foreign policy to end poverty. He can be reached at Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu

Note:Examiner.com has blocked public access to my articles on their site (and from other whistleblowers), so some links in my previous work are blocked. If you’d like to search for those articles other sites may have republished, use words from the article title within the blocked link. Or, go tohttp://archive.org/web/, paste the expired link into the box, click “Browse history,” then click onto the screenshots of that page for each time it was screen-shot and uploaded to webarchive. I’ll update as “hobby time” allows; including my earliest work from 2009 to 2011 (blocked author pages: here, here).

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the stories on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental issues, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use'...you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.